Are Conservatives as Committed to Life as the Left is to Abortion?

Charmaine Yoest’s post below detailing the mob tactics used to defeat a key Texas pro-life bill should serve as a clarion call for pro-life conservatives. Abortion advocates will not bow to democratic process in their quest to preserve abortion-on-demand, regardless of the conditions of the clinic and regardless of the age of the unborn child. In fact, mustering such a mob so soon after the Gosnell case — against a bill that would effectively shut down Gosnell-style clinics — demonstrates not only their utter shamelessness but also their justified belief that neither the MSM nor the left-wing press (I’m being redundant, of course) will do anything other than applaud.

But in watching footage of the mob, I couldn’t help but ask myself a question: Are we as committed to life as the Left is to abortion?

Are we even half as committed?

There is a simple fix to the Left’s mob tactics in Austin, a fix that is completely consistent with Texas’s democratic traditions. Governor Perry can call legislators back for a special session, and the bill will pass. Already there’s a Twitter campaign calling for the governor to do just that — #callthemback.

Texas — as any Texan is fond of telling you — is not just any state. Governor Perry and other leaders have done yeoman’s work in creating and sustaining an economic and social model that stands in direct opposition to the leftward lurch of the federal government. Whether this Tennessean likes it or not (my state is often overlooked as a conservative leader), Texas has immense influence and a true capacity to lead as it constructs a “red model” to compete with the “blue model” in states like California, New York, and Illinois.

Dear Texas, if you want to lead, then lead. Demonstrate commitment to life, get the legislature back in session, and pass the bill — no matter the mob.

UPDATE:  Governor Perry has called back the legislature.  Thank you, Governor.

This post first ran at National Review. 

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I can’t speak for Conservatives, but I am as committed.

  • Y. A. Warren

    You want to stop abortion? Make contraception freely available. It is the right of every child to be wanted and cherished.

    • sg

      Actually it isn’t. Our bloody revolution was fought to protect “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Children don’t have the right to be wanted or cherished, but do have a right to live.

      • Y. A. Warren

        Pregnancy and childbirth are very dangerous to life of mother and child. Childcare seriously limits the liberty of the parents. Being an unwanted and/or uncherished child destroys happiness. Effective contraception solves all three problems.

        • Jacob Simon

          You do realize that more contraception leads to more abortions, right?

          Not to mention that a child being “unwanted” is a defect in the parent, not the child.

          Also abortions are much more dangerous for the mother than childbirth, and obviously much more dangerous for the child.

          And if the parents feel that their “liberty” is lessened by the child, they have the liberty to put the child up for adoption.

          • Y. A. Warren

            “You do realize that more contraception leads to more abortions, right?”

            Please tell me where you got your information on more
            contraception leading to more abortion.

            “Not to mention that a child being “unwanted” is a defect in the parent, not the child.”

            I agree, but there are many seriously defective people who make unfit parents. Many of the defective pro-creators are harming their babies in the uterus. Many of these “defective” babies are not adopted.

            “Also abortions are much more dangerous for the mother than childbirth, and obviously much more dangerous for the child.”

            Where are you getting your information on the relative dangers of abortion vs those of childbirth?

            I am not a proponent of abortion, but I think it’s time we separate the two issue of contraception and ending pregnancies with abortions.

            “And if the parents feel that their “liberty” is lessened by the child, they have the liberty to put the child up for adoption.”

            Adoptions are not as easy as the uninformed public believes them to be. Not all children are considered “adoptable,” especially boys after infancy. Neither are they painless for the children when they find that they were “discarded” by the birth parents.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Isn’t the answer to all of that, actually intending pregnancy when you have sex?

          • KarenJo12

            Abortion is considerably safer than childbirth.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Contraception encourages abortion- because when it fails, an abortion happens.

      What we need to stop is sex.

      • Y. A. Warren

        Where are you getting you information?

        I have a wonderful son who I joking said was born with white-blond hair because the contraceptive foam that my husband and I were using to put off pregnancy for a couple of months didn’t prevent his father’s super sperm from swimming to that egg. I can tell you many cases of well-loved children who came about while people were using both “natural” and pharmaceutical means of contraception. The commitment to the children, not to producing more of them, seems to be the answer to many problems in human society.

        Good luck with stopping sex. For plants and non-homo-sapien animals, too? The Shakers tried that. There aren’t any more of them.

        What we need is to understand that human sex is a sacred form of bonding families, even when the family is made up of only two people. Wherever 2 or more are gathered together in the spirit of Jesus’ responsibly compassionate love, there is The Sacred Spirit.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Overpopulation cannot be supported mathematically, it’s a myth.

          The concept of an “unwanted child” is equally irrational and highly insulting to me.

          Yet even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute agrees that 98% of abortions, are due to failed contraception.

          • Y. A. Warren

            I have not argued for less population. I have argued for less abused and abandoned children being born to people who are either not willing or not capable of the many forms of support (physical, mental, financial, emotional, spiritual, societal) it takes to bring up a child.

            You must have a charmed life that you have never encountered a person not wanted by their own parents. Good for you! You are truly blessed.

            The statistics quoted do not mean that 98% of failed contraception efforts lead to abortion simply because the inverse may be true.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            I didn’t say I hadn’t encountered such people. I said that I find the classification of such people to be highly insulting. Especially since it encourages irresponsibility with respect to sex. The only safe sex is no sex- we’ve known that for a long time- but the contraceptive companies, which of course would rather *sell you* a form of birth control then let you use the God Given birth control of abstinence for free, would like to hide that fact.

            Abortion causes failed contraception? That’s an interesting statement to make. Do you have any proof that abortion causes failed contraception?

          • Y. A. Warren

            You’re right about it being insulting, especially to the unwanted children. I know plenty of people who were created as “party favors” for their images, for their religions, or for their parents. Once the party was not as much fun as they though it would be they shamed their children in every way possible while continuing to reap the benefits society bestows on marriages and parents.

            As long as there are many people who don’t use their free will to make responsible decisions, we will continue to have irresponsible, non-compassionate people, including parents. This is why abstinence continues to fail for those not committed to responsibly compassionate lives.

            I didn’t say that abortion causes failed contraception. What I said is that simply because 98% of abortions are precipitated by failed contraception, this does not mean that 98% of failed contraception leads to abortion.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            It seems to me that if we were teaching abstinence correctly in the first place (as a matter of honor instead of a matter of shame) then we’d have far more people actually living responsibly compassionate lives, instead of just talking about it.

            Ah, ok. I can understand that. But to think that failed contraception (and in fact, the contraceptive mentality that your quality of life is more important than your children’s existence in life) doesn’t cause abortion, is a problem as well.

            I reject the entire concept of family planning, because it leads to a children as “party favors” mentality, when sex should never be about recreation in the first place.

          • Y. A. Warren

            I don’t believe sex is about recreation, but I do believe that humans are made to be communal animals, and that sex is a sacred way that committed couples bond. Jesus often compares his love of us to the love we are to experience in marriage. I believe that the ecstasy we experience in truly committed sexual communion is supposed to help us understand what is in store for us when we reach The Ultimate Eternal Unity.

            We were not made to be “Soldiers of Christ,” nor to create more of them. Jesus had no military. I believe that “Go forth, be fruitful, and multiply” is misinterpreted to mean, “Have a lot of children for the church.” It is my experience that truly responsible, compassionate relationships of any sort tend to grow with the synergy of sharing. This Sacred Spirit then spreads like sunshine and rain.

            It is true in a completely compassionate world, we would have no self-serving families or religion, but my experience is that people are too busy taking care of what they see as “theirs” to take on any more responsibility.

            I believe that we are given the gift of reason and responsibility to use our free wills to make informed choices. Unless I am willing to take an unlimited number of pregnant mothers into my home and commit to be committed to these lives and the lives they produce for all my life, I feel that I should offer the means to help protect the mothers and children protection from the abuses that come with being less than cherished in today’s world.

            Meanwhile, I pray for the light of The Sacred Spirit that is available to all humanity to grow and multiply through people deeply committed to sharing responsible compassion with others.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            The main way I experience love in my marriage isn’t sex. It is sacrifice. It is working long hours at the office to provide my family with a home and food on the table. It is my wife understanding when my migraines come. It is the both of us being patient with a child who is 10 physically and emotionally but 6 mentally.

            Ecstasy means nothing to my family’s love. I’ve learned how to share love without sex. It isn’t have a lot of children for the church, it is knowing that the meaning of life is taking part in God’s Creation, not man’s.

            Creating the next generation is a part of our responsibility, not separate from it.

            If the only form of love you know is sex, I can certainly see how you would feel like women need to be protected from pregnancy, and children need to be protected from existing.

            But you can’t practice responsible compassion by failing to be compassionate enough to learn self-sacrifice.

          • Y. A. Warren

            I feel for you and your family. I hope you have a committed community offering you much support for the extra responsible compassion that is required in your family.

            My children and one of my grandchildren are grown. I thank God every day that my children were born with the capacity to become fully functioning adults. Bringing them into the world and getting them to this point required a great deal of sacrifice, which I know would have been greater had they had special needs.

            I’m not sure where you get the impression that the only love I know is sex. Nothing is farther from my truth. Some of the greatest ecstasy in my life has been in watching and assisting loving families nurture each other.

            I have been unable to conceive since a medically necessary hysterectomy, partially because of damage sustained in the birth of the sacred gift of my son.

            Since our responsibilities to our children and grandchildren have ceased and my husband and I have retired from the paying workforce (although both of us do a great deal of volunteer work), we have been able to reclaim the joy of uninterrupted leisure in the arms of each other. For this, we are thankful.

            I hope your committed community helps you and your wife experience the same, with or without sex.

      • Jillytoo

        More often than not, when contraception fails, A BABY HAPPENS. If it didn’t, no one on the right would be griping about welfare babies, or anchor babies, or teen moms because there wouldn’t be any. And the population certainly wouldn’t be 7 billion people and counting, if the first thing women did when their birth control method failed was terminate the pregnancy.
        Give us some credit, please. The first thought that runs through a woman’s mind upon learning she’s pregnant is NOT terminating it, contrary to popular belief. It’s generally, “WTF, what was the first day of my last period? And when did I have sex after that? Crap, where’s my calendar?!”

        • TheodoreSeeber

          33% of children conceived over all, are aborted. Contraception failure accounts for 98% of that.

          So no, I do not believe a baby happens so consistently, or else we’d be at the 9.8 billion people the overpopulation math said we *SHOULD* be at in 2013.

          The first thought should be “I need to tell the father, and we need to welcome this child”. In every case.

          • Sven2547

            Contraception failure accounts for 98% of that.

            If you call not-using-contraceptives “contraception failure”…

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Yes, in a way. Failure to educate that chastity is the only contraception that works, anyway.

          • Sven2547

            Bristol Palin decided she was taking the “chastity” approach. Then she got pregnant. Is that not a failure of that approach?

            It’s easy to say your method is 100% effective when you deliberately disregard every instance of it failing.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            If she was going out with a boy that she didn’t intend to marry and have children with, then NO, she wasn’t taking the chastity approach. If she was going out on dates that were not chaperoned, NO, she wasn’t taking the chastity approach.

            There was no failure of the chastity approach in Bristol Palin’s case, because it wasn’t even tried.

            No sex is the only safe sex. What part of that is your generation too stupid to understand?

          • Pam

            Why not just lock all girls up until they’re let out on their wedding day? That’s the only way your fantasy ideas would work. Although we’d probably also better lock women up after marriage, too, and only let them out on designated procreation days so they’re not tempted to physically enjoy their husbands.

            Or we could live in the real world where you can knock yourself out with your sex-only-for-procreation approach while others make their own decisions about their sex lives.

            Oh wait – silly me! You don’t believe in consent or the concept of individual choice. Well, back to tilting at windmills for you.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            “Why not just lock all girls up until they’re let out on their wedding day?”

            Because a lack of education, makes for bad mothers- mothers who can’t lead their half of “the domestic Church” and who can’t “be the primary introduction of their children to the world”. In other words, a woman who is “locked up” as you put it, is incapable of the fullness of procreation.

            “Or we could live in the real world where you can knock yourself out with your sex-only-for-procreation approach while others make their own decisions about their sex lives.”

            And thus also make themselves incapable of procreation.

            “Oh wait – silly me! You don’t believe in consent or the concept of individual choice. Well, back to tilting at windmills for you.”

            I’m just pointing out that your system leads only to extermination. So much for “individual choice” and “consent”- which are utterly unsustainable methods of procreation. In the long run, in this world, in this reality, only procreation counts.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            I’m calling the entire culture claiming “premarital sex is ok because we have contraceptives” and then failing to teach the proper use of contraceptive techniques a failure of the entire contraceptive system.

            Better to encourage chastity, every date be chaperoned, and every father with a shotgun.

          • Sven2547

            I’m calling the entire culture claiming “premarital sex is ok because we have contraceptives” and then failing to teach the proper use of contraceptive techniques a failure of the entire contraceptive system.

            Comprehensive sex-education does teach the proper use of contraceptive techniques. It’s the evangelical crowd that opposes comprehensive sex-ed. That’s why you see a higher incidence of teen parenthood and unintended pregnancy in evangelical Christians than any other American religious segment.

            You think the culture is a failure? No duh, it’s your culture!

          • TheodoreSeeber

            “Comprehensive sex-education does teach the proper use of contraceptive techniques.”

            The only contraceptive technique that works is chastity. Not abstinence. Not technological marvels. Chastity.

            ” It’s the evangelical crowd that opposes comprehensive sex-ed.”

            Good thing I’m not an evangelical. And it isn’t my culture, it’s the culture of Libertine Protestantism. You want to know why Chastity isn’t taught? Because nobody’s figured out how to make money off of it. Abstinence is big business. Contraceptive chemicals and abortions and barriers are big business. They can make tons of money off of those. But common sense chastity such as making sure your dates are chaperoned? That’s practically free! Can’t possibly have people doing things we can’t make money off of.

      • Sven2547

        What we need to stop is sex.

        Turns out: people like sex. Shocking, I know. Keep on blaming people for being human.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Turns out Jeffery Dahmer thought little boy meat tasted good. Shocking, I know. Keep on blaming people for being human, I guess.

          There are lots of things humans like to do, that are not good for either them or the civilization that they live in. Ethics and morality is about attempting to teach others not to do what merely feels good momentarily, but which does a lot of damage elsewhere. And just because you are personally too myopic to see the damage does not mean the damage doesn’t exist.

          • Sven2547

            It takes a twisted mind to compare consensual sex to homicide and cannibalism. You embarrass yourself and your cause.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            There is no such thing as “consensual sex”. It’s a rationalization after the fact that can’t be proven either way, as several men who have become accidental date rapists can attest to.

            In addition to that, even consensual sex, when done in a context where children are not wanted or ill advised, can be very damaging indeed.

          • Sven2547

            There is no such thing as “consensual sex”.

            I’m giving you one chance to take back this statement and admit it was a very foolish thing to say.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Without God and free will, the concept of “consent” in and of itself is meaningless, on anything. Our brains just pretend that consent exists so that we can rationalize what we have done after the fact. Action precedes thought, that’s been verified with fMRI scans, and if you act before you think, how can you call ANYTHING you do consensual?

            It is only with an informed conscience that a human being can begin to change that, and by even using the term “consensual sex” I have to assume your conscience is simply not very well formed.

          • Sven2547

            The nature of “free will” continues to be a major subject of philosophical discussion, to be sure. But your nonsensical proclamations seem to imply that you honestly do not know the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex.

            TheodoreSeeber, how often do you rape your wife? I pose this question not to insult or defame, but to illustrate the absurdity of your position.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            We only have sex for the express purpose of procreation- like any truly loving relationship would.

          • Sven2547

            But is it rape? You seem to be evading my simple point. You and your wife are in what I’m sure is a loving and consenting relationship.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Any time you are using the other person in lust without intending a positive good (such as procreating a child) it is rape.

            Consent doesn’t matter. The intention towards the other person is what matters.

            Which means, BTW, in my book, all contracepted sex is rape. It is using the other person’s body to fulfil your lust without intending positive good for them, even if they’re doing the same to you.

            Sex done right takes 35 years.

          • Sven2547

            I see. Your understanding of the words “consent” and “rape” do not actually resemble any recognizable definition for those words within the English language. You are creating your own definitions completely ad-hoc, apparently to justify your personal worldview. You are entitled to your opinions, and you are also entitled to speak improper English (I do all the time).

            If you take this path, however, be aware that your brazen misuse of these words will cause confusion in the people you talk to, and it will cause people to look poorly on any position you are attempting to defend using these terms. If you want to be more persuasive, it may be in your interest to investigate the actual legal usage of these terms, especially when you are trying to discuss things like the rule of law and people’s medical decisions.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            “If you want to be more persuasive”

            Being persuasive is a lost cause. The best I can do is sow confusion and doubt, and let people make up their own minds. If I get ONE person to consider that maybe sex isn’t just for recreation, I’ve won. If I get one man to realize that maybe he owes something more to the lady he slept with last night than paying for dinner, I’ve won. If I get one mother to keep her child, I’ve won. If I get one philanthropist to give up a little more profit for the sake of his neighbors in poverty, I’ve won.

            And it usually isn’t even the person who thinks that they are talking to me.

          • Sven2547

            Except that by acting the fool, you’re pushing away ten for every one you attract.
            You believe that infertile people can never have sex. Any sex with them is “rape”, by your definition. That’s nonsense. That’s insane. That’s your brain on religious fundamentalism.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            “Except that by acting the fool, you’re pushing away ten for every one you attract.”

            Those ten were already lost- so far gone in the definitions of the liberal dictionary, so far gone into the comfortable genocide where you sacrifice your own future to your present and the next generation to the current generation, that they can’t be reached.

            “You believe that infertile people can never have sex.”

            Yep.

            ” Any sex with them is “rape”, by your definition.”

            Yep.

            ” That’s nonsense. That’s insane. That’s your brain on religious fundamentalism.”

            It is only nonsense if you are so lost in your own slavery to lust, your own slavery to sin, that you cannot conceive of staying with somebody without having sex with them. Or, as I put it above, can’t sleep next to somebody without having sex with them (which I remember, you claimed to be able to do).

            Sex isn’t worth harming another human being for.

          • Sven2547

            …that you cannot conceive of staying with somebody without having sex with them. Or, as I put it above, can’t sleep next to somebody without having sex with them

            I don’t believe that at all, and I’ve never met anybody who has.

            I’ve met a lot of people with diverse opinions on sex and reproduction, but yours are by far the craziest. What religion do you follow? Is this the official position of your church?

          • TheodoreSeeber

            “I don’t believe that at all, and I’ve never met anybody who has.”

            Then maybe you should admit that abstinence is possible and chastity works. Because otherwise, the implication is that even infertile people are forced to have sex; they have no ability or will to say no.

            “I’ve met a lot of people with diverse opinions on sex and reproduction, but yours are by far the craziest. What religion do you follow? Is this the official position of your church?”

            No, it is just the logical conclusion of examining the other side’s philosophy honestly- but if it matters, I’m Catholic. Which I guess, does lead me to actually *think* about what the the other side says, instead of just taking their rhetoric at face value. Satanic temptation can usually be exposed because it is always irrational. From my point of view, you contraceptive mentality people who think you can divorce sex from procreation are the crazy ones.

  • Msironen

    It seems to me that this planet currently has enough life it can support, if not more. Now you may have a religious commitment for creating more human life (than we can realistically support) but it’s a bit odd to call that as “life” in general. Why don’t you go plant a tree instead?

    • Lee Johnson

      The point is the life is already here.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      This is not a simple answer but as it turns out neither side is quite correct on this one. The world can comfortably support 1,296,296,296 people living like they do in the United Arab Emerates, or 35,000,000,000 people living like Bangladeshis. It is only greed that leads us towards one extreme or the other.

  • Jerry Lynch

    Rick Perry called for a special session to begin Monday. It seems impossible for SB5 to fail this time around. In fairness, you might have mentioned how the Texas Republicans fraudulently “passed” the bill, taking their vote after the midnight deadline but affixing a pre-midnight date of the 25th. There is a “red model” for you. Also, no mention was made of the continual procedural improprieties to thwart Democratic opposition, a little “gangsta” politics. If you look at Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michican Republican “gansta” tactics in those legislatures, Texas is a “red model.” The assembled crowd, not mob, loudly objected tp a final attempt by Republicans to ignore procedure and bulldog through the bill.

    “Abortion advocates will not bow to democratic process in their quest to preserve abortion-on-demand, regardless of the conditions of the clinic and regardless of the age of the unborn child.” This statement is another one of your purposely inflammatory rhetoric to stir up fear and hate. Wendy’s filibuster is part of the democratic process. She used it correctly (unlike Republican Senators). In America, we still have this right.

    Or is this a better example of being a “red model”: Two bills from the Texas legislature labeled “blatantly racist” by the Justice Department have escaped being thrown out by the recent SCOTUS decision over the Voting Rights law and are now back in action. One of the bills is a redistricting plan that would eliminate the seats of all minority lawmakers and all whites retain theirs. Gerrymandering and voter restriction laws: are these the ideals of a “red model”?

    An actual filibuster: you have to admire that even if you disagree with her (and I do). Senate Rebuplicans don’t even have to stand for a minute to explain their opposition in their three year running record-breaking filibustering that has slowed all recovery and progress in this country. Is that the “red model”?

  • Lee Johnson

    Good question.

  • Mikegalanx

    Given the numbers of murders and bombings of pro-choice supporters committed by pro-life conservatives, compared to the numbers of murders and bombings of pro-life supporters by pro-choicers (zero) I’d say the conservatives are definitely more committed.

    • Mark Mathias

      I’d say every unborn child that your pro-choice supporters have murdered is pro-life: they want to live as much as you do, and they have every right to do so. No murder is justifiable, not even when the murderer calls himself pro-life. Saying it doesn’t make it, so your repetition of the falsehood is meaningless.

  • Jerry Lynch

    If we follow the comments to this blog, including mine unfortunately, we see a reflection of its divisive nature: No one is encouraged to love, to seek dialogue and resolution, to see and respect the imago dei in each other. It is all about “versus,” drawing battle lines and plans for attack: where is Christ in that?

    I made the mistake, in a snarly mood about yet another caricature of the Left being evil and unprincipled and the Right being some model of righteousness and light, of trying to balance the piece by weighting the scale with criticisms of Republicans. It was meant to be simply a rein to check the galloping judgmentalism. “Whoa, not so fast where you are pointing a finger. Take a look at your own side in this.” But this was just as divisive. My apologies.

    Jesus saw sin as evil, not people. People were blind that did wrong, they had a blank in their eye. If they had the light, the love of God, they would do what is right, having “the eyes to see.” Love is that light, for God is love. Love of our enemies is not just for some pacifist sect. As Christians, casting dispersions on any person or group is sin. This is childish and we are to put away such things. I will strive to do so in the future.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      It is very hard for me to see the imago dei in a person who has worked extremely hard to kill any trace of God in their personality. Those who kill their children, kill a part of themselves- the very part that is the image of God.

      • Quid

        It’s hard to see, but it’s still there. We were made in the image of God and it’s apart of our essence. No matter how depraved we are, we cannot lose it before death.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          I used to think that until I met a man who believes that the definition of a child is dependent upon the number of cells in the human body.

          I have no good answer for that.

          • Quid

            I’ve had that experience before, but it’s not so easy to lose one’s humanity. We were created in the likeness and image of God. Through the fall we lost his likeness, but by our very nature we maintain God’s image. Sin can destroy your union with God but it cannot warp your essence.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Pro-choice atheists don’t “lose” their humanity, they forsake it and deny it. They don’t want that essence, and do everything they can in their lives to wall it and wish it away. The biggest insult you can give such a person are the words “I’ll pray for you”, because that causes them the pain of noticing that their soul still exists.

            I find it incredibly hard to love such people- especially when the only thing I ever get back in return is hate.

          • Quid

            Again, I agree with you, but the essence of a man is more than just his foundation. It is the fundamental principle of his being, transcending his nature and his free choices. My essence is, by definition, immutable. It’s like Lady MacBeth in Shakespeare. She tries to revoke her essence as a human being, but she cannot which leads her to suicide at the end.

            As for loving these people, Jesus loves them completely, and if we can’t love them we should at least wish their well being.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            We should indeed, I’m just saying I find it nearly impossible to love them. I do wish their well being- and that is best served by conversion.

    • Y. A. Warren

      I believe that politics hijacked Christianity so long ago that it has nothing to do with Jesus.

  • kwdayboise

    Since the right had also worked to fry the 500th death row inmate in Texas since 1982 on that exact same date, I thought your headline must be ironic. My mistake.

    • David French

      I wasn’t aware that unborn children had killed anyone, been tried by a jury, and been allowed multiple appeals before suffering a death far more brutal.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Are death row inmates in Texas allowed to appeal? I was kind of under the impression that once sentenced, there was no way out in Texas.

      • kwdayboise

        So then only some lives have value, perhaps particularly those that can be used as political wedge issues. That’s a considerably different concept than what I learned in my catechism. It seems especially strange to value those taken in private moments over those taken quite literally by the state. It must be very confusing to be a conservative these days.

  • http://wonderwheels.blogspot.com/ Gregory Wonderwheel

    “Mob tactics”? Oh this cracks me up! Anyone remember the Republican mob outside the doors in Florida when the recount was going on? Anyone remember the Republicans shouting down any congressperson having a town hall meeting who didn’t agree with them? The people using the phony “pro-life” label for themselves are not really for life as it is, they are for life as a living death of the mind. Their fixed and inflexible views of what is life are really the death knell of how to live life. They worship death in life, not life. That is why they invariably support militarization and empire and killing innocents abroad in the name of national security while they claim to be “pro-life.”
    Real life is wiggly and squishy and can’t be forced into neat little boxes of what is right or wrong. Real life is like trying to grab a handful of water. When a woman is having to deal with a pregnancy, real life is what happens between her, her family and her doctor, not what self-defined do-gooders and self-righteous “life protectors” have to say when they want to interfere.

    • Gary

      As a Texan, Catholic, and pacifist, I resent your stereotype. Yeah. We exist.

      If real life can’t be forced into neat little boxes of right and wrong, as you put it, then how can you object to pro-lifers interfering as if that’s somehow wrong?

  • Robert Hopgood

    Question:
    If you are so “pro-life” does that mean you are as strongly “anti-death penalty”??

    • David French

      I favor protecting innocent life and punishing those who’ve been found guilty of murder after a trial by jury and have exercised the right of multiple appeals. Who did the baby harm before a death more brutal than any lethal injection?

      • Glenn Olson

        The unwilling host-body that it germinated within.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          The problem with that is the “unwilling” part. We need to start making people more willing to have children.

        • Quid

          Was that the fetus’ fault or its parents’?

          • Glenn Olson

            None of the above.

          • Quid

            It wasn’t the parents’ fault that they had sex?

          • Glenn Olson

            As consent to sex is not always mutual, and as sex does not always lead to pregnancy, unilaterally assigning ‘fault’ along that line is not something I would support.

            It’s also a bit of a red herring. “Fault” is irrelevant to so many other cases of injustice that it’s rather hypocritical to bring it up here. It’s not the child’s fault that his father was an Al-quaeda operative, but he’s orphaned – or claimed as collateral damage – regardless. Nor is it the woman’s fault that she was trafficked as a sex worker under fear of death, yet we still shame her and prosecute her as a whore.

        • msmischief

          People who are unwilling to face the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their own actions need protection from themselves. A woman who doesn’t realize what she’s getting into will probably also not realize what she got into when hemorrhaging to death.

          • Glenn Olson

            One could say the same of most denizens of death row, as I doubt any of them really realized what they were getting into either.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Actually, many do. They were just hoping that the cops rather than the courts, would carry out the sentence.

  • http://wonderwheels.blogspot.com/ Gregory Wonderwheel

    FYI, the Texas “economic model” is a complete con game and fraud. There is absolutely nothing “sustaining” about it. The model is the opposite of “sustaining” and depends completely on plutocratic profiteering and accepting the dole of the Federal Government while out of the other side of their mouths they disdain the Federal Government. When the amount of money flowing between the state and the nation is accounted for, Texas is a state of takers, not makers.

    • Jillytoo

      As a fellow Texan, I agree with this assessment.

  • sg

    The governor cannot easily call a special session. He has to have a good reason. I think this bill is important, however, the governor probably could not call a special session to consider it. Special sessions are, well, special. The Texas legislature is very part time. It only meets for 140 days every other year. There has to be a pressing reason to call a special session, like some kind of legally required need.

  • Michael

    There is a fundamental error in the title of your article that I find very off-putting. The assumption is that all on the left – you block ‘the left’ as one – are in favour of abortion. Amongst my democratic and liberal friends and acquaintances I can count 50% who are solidly against abortion.

  • ahermit

    The commitment here is to the right of women to control what happens in their own bodies.

    Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. That means better sex education, access to contraception and fair access to safe, legal abortions in well regulated clinics and hospitals.

    • David French

      Should a woman have a right to control what happens to another person’s body?

      • ahermit

        That’s avoiding the issue frankly. Leaving aside the question of when exactly a collection of cells becomes a person, does any person have the right to use another’s body without their permission? Can the State impose on anyone an obligation to make their body available for another’s use?

        These are very real issues which are too often ignored in this debate.

        • Quid

          “Does the state have the right to use another’s body without their permission?”

          Yeah, I’m pretty sure they have the right if an innocent life is one the line. The state has the right to arrest murders against their will.

          • ahermit

            Not the same thing at all.

          • Quid

            If the fetus is alive then it is exactly the same thing.

          • ahermit

            The question was “does the State have the right to impose on any individual the obligation to make their body available for another’s use?” To use the organ donation analogy, can the government compel you to donate a kidney?

            I don’t see what arresting murderers has to do with that question.

          • msmischief

            No, the State is not ordering your rape, which is what forcing you to donate a kidney would be. The State is merely stating that you knew what could happen, and you aren’t allowed to hack open someone else’s body because of it.

            For that matter, if you got my kidney, and I could prove in a court of law that I had been coerced into donating it — you being unaware of it — I would be SOL. I would not acquire the right to hack you to pieces for it.

          • ahermit

            Don’t get carried away. The analogy isn’t perfect, but the principle is the same. The State cannot force anyone to sacrifice their body for the sake of another.

            This of course doesn’t even take into consideration the question of whether the State has the right to be privy to the conversations between a woman and her doctor regarding her decisions about her own body or whether a foetus which hasn’t even developed the neural structures necessary for producing an individual personality should be considered a person with more rights than an adult woman.

            This just isn’t the clear cut black and white issue you’re making it out to be here.

        • msmischief

          “does any person have the right to use another’s body without their permission?”

          Yes. Organ recipients are allowed to go on using the donors’ organs even if the donors changed their minds. Any attempt to retrieve the organ is crime of the first order of magnitude, because it invokes attacking the recipient.

          “Can the State impose on anyone an obligation to make their body available for another’s use?”

          How silly. What you mean is that having made your body available for another’s use, you wish to rescind said permission. Not allowed, per the organ donor example.

          If you don’t want to make your body available, try not making it available.

          • ahermit

            The original organ donation has to be voluntary, so again not the same thing at all.

          • msmischief

            So you wish to limit it to cases of rape?

      • karla

        If she has no right to control what happens to another body, what gives YOU the right to decide what happens to hers?

        • msmischief

          Because it involves hacking apart someone else’s? If I donated my kidney to you and decided I wanted it back, that it was part of my body gives me no right to dismember you to retrieve it.

      • Sven2547

        Should a woman have a right to control what happens to another person’s body?

        Every “pro-life” person literally does think they have the right to control what happens to other people’s bodies.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Every pro-life person literally DOES think that the individual is less important than the public good- and that love means actually having to sacrifice yourself for the next generation.

          Without self sacrifice, there is no love.

  • Ace_of_Sevens

    Gosnel’s actions were already illegal. This would have shut down a lot more than that.

  • Jillytoo

    Anyone who is keen to save a fetus but is willing to let existing children go hungry, homeless, and without medical care should not claim to be “pro-life”. What’s up with all the hatred of social programs, pro-lifers? If you valued the life of everyone, why do you keep voting for the very people determined to do away with SNAP, Section 8, TANF, and Medicaid?! I truly don’t get it, I thought y’all LIKED babies and children?
    For the record the left is not “committed to abortion”, they are committed to women having the right to choose what happens and what doesn’t happen to their bodies.

    • Y. A. Warren

      I believe that the availability of free contraception would make abortion obsolete. I think it is a pro-child issue. I believe all children have the right to be wanted, planned, and cherished. I notice that those opposing abortion aren’t signing up to pay all the expenses to support the children; neither are they signing up to help with babies when the parents have to work or the babies are up crying all night for weeks on end.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        I am.

        I am willing to go so far as to say we need a 99% income tax on all incomes above $100,000, and a 50% income tax below that, in order to fully fund SNAP, Section 8, TANF, WIC, and Medicaid. These are pro-life programs.

        I am not willing to fund contraception because there is a perfectly free alternative: celibacy.

        I am not willing to fund abortion because there is a perfectly free alternative except in cases of rape, incest, and medical necessity: celibacy.

        I am willing to also fund research into reducing the need for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical necessity, but recognize that these three things are much harder to deal with than mere lack of being willing to keep one’s pants on.

      • msmischief

        Risk compensation. Since no contraceptive is 100% reliable, handing out contraception like candy can increase abortions by increasing the delusion of “safety”.

        • Y. A. Warren

          Many of the more responsible fathers I know have had vasectomies when they and their wives decided they had as many children as they felt they had apportioned all the resources to they had to commit to them.

          Many of the more responsible mothers had tubal ligations.

          Some of them did have future pregnancies and have accepted and loved these children.

          We were given brains and free will for a reason. Scientists continue to help us serve both. No matter what is available through the scientific community, the fact remains, that we are not functioning as fully human if we refuse to exercise either our intellects or our freedom to choose the dictates of our consciences.

        • Sven2547

          That’s like saying seatbelts promote accidents.

          • msmischief

            They do. This has been repeatedly shown. Visible safety devices on cars do not decrease the number of accidents, because people drive more recklessly in response.

    • Quid

      and apparently what happens and what does not happen to other people’s bodies also.

      • Jillytoo

        It’s not a person unless it can live outside the womb.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          So a human being on life support isn’t a person to you?

        • Quid

          I always wondered why birth was such a big deal in terms of evaluated the essence of a person. It’s not like the chemical makeup is any different two minutes before or after birth. How can you qualify personhood by passing through a vagina??

  • WalterSmirth

    What you call “mob tactics” is called democracy by others. You lose your arguments by using pejoratives.

    • msmischief

      You’re saying a majority was at the capital?

  • TheodoreSeeber

    If conservatives are to be as committed to pro-life, as the other side is committed to pro-death, we need to *seriously* consider giving up fiscal liberty to make sure *every* child has a right to life. Even if we have to pay the mothers a salary for being pregnant.

    • msmischief

      That won’t do it. By paying money to pregnant women, you make the prospect of becoming pregnant more attractive. Then they decide they don’t want the baby after all.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Then maybe the salary should also cover motherhood. A pension for life.

        Because if we don’t, we’re going to run out of people of working age.

        • msmischief

          There are disadvantages to motherhood other than monetary.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            I know many believe so. But they believe so without evidence.

  • Y. A. Warren

    Put Up or Shut Up!

    Cost Of Raising A Child Climbs To $235,000 For Middle-Income Families
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/14/cost-of-raising-a-child-c_n_1597729.html

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Only $9500/year? That seems a bit low to me.

  • Jim Bales

    It turns out that, simply by subsidizing birth control, the abortion rate can be cut by a factor of two, or more:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57526550/study-free-birth-control-leads-to-way-fewer-abortions/

    “There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. That’s lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.”/i>

    So, you can tell if someone is sincere in wanting to reduce the number of abortions in the US — they support subsidized birth control (e.g., as required by Obamacare). Anyone opposed to Obamacare (which subsidized birth control) wants more abortions to happen rather than allow women to use birth control.

    In other words, conservatives who oppose Obamacare would rather embrace abortion than allow women control over their fertility.

    Best,
    Jim Bales

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Good thing I’m not a Bible only Christian, and have Apostolic Tradition:
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

  • Jerry Lynch

    It is not like Christians have a right to choose whether to love the pro-choicer or abortionist; not to do so, to have hate in your heart, is, as Jesus said in Matthew, murder. You cannot be pro-life and unsult the Left, Liberals, and the president. You may want what you see as the real murder of an “innocent” as far greater than how your heart feels about those that support abortion or perfom abortions but your feelings and what you say about their actions are the same: murder.

    Love your enemy is to be Christian; anything less is not. Love of enemy is not just for the Amish or Canadians. It is a binding commandment.

    As a few have noted, if you are pro-life, believe that all life matters, then you must also protest the “red model” of Texas’ record-breaking capital murders, up to 500.

    Such pieces as this without any appeal or even mention to be as Christ was in the world, simply devised as a venue of insult and division, to stir up hate while looking to appear righteous, do not belong on the Evangelical Channel. They really have no place anywhere.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X